Post by brenda November 1, 2004 (51 of 63)
|
|
flyingdutchman said:
Bullshit. You called me a racist. Don't sit there and try and sidestep.
dear flying, although I am sitting here(hard to type when standing up) I am not at all trying to sidestep, just citing the words I actualy used. If you look at them you will see that I carefully avoided that ad hominum epithet and said firstly that, in context (which I explained) your comment "borders on racism" and secondly (in a later post) that the jibe in the context of the reviewer's acknowledged poor english "suggests" same. I do not resile from either useage, though I am more than happy, in the light of your rebuttal, to accept that your post was simply born out of insensitivity to others rather than any baser motivation.
Please don't have a go at pann, he's an innocent bystander - direct your ire towards me.
Is there some kind of truce we can reach over this? I've said my bit and stand by it but have nothing to add. You may well feel that you do. That's fine. But while I can take the heat (without sidestepping) it's not productive heat unless we can draw some lessons about future behaviour and forms of expression in posts on the forum, and maybe agree to some protocol. Zeus's guidelines cover a lot of things in a very sensible fashion, - can we productively augment them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
brenda said:
dear flying, although I am sitting here(hard to type when standing up) I am not at all trying to sidestep, just citing the words I actualy used. If you look at them you will see that I carefully avoided that ad hominum epithet and said firstly that, in context (which I explained) your comment "borders on racism" and secondly (in a later post) that the jibe in the context of the reviewer's acknowledged poor english "suggests" same. I do not resile from either useage, though I am more than happy, in the light of your rebuttal, to accept that your post was simply born out of insensitivity to others rather than any baser motivation.
Please don't have a go at pann, he's an innocent bystander - direct your ire towards me.
Is there some kind of truce we can reach over this? I've said my bit and stand by it but have nothing to add. You may well feel that you do. That's fine. But while I can take the heat (without sidestepping) it's not productive heat unless we can draw some lessons about future behaviour and forms of expression in posts on the forum, and maybe agree to some protocol. Zeus's guidelines cover a lot of things in a very sensible fashion, - can we productively augment them?
Lady,
Go talk your insensitive BS somewhere else, because no comment of mine was made insensitively toward a person's race, inability or ability to write in English or otherwise. My post was simply born out of the desire to have more than what the reviewer gave, nothing less. Yet you want to take another shot at me by calling me "insensitive to others." The person who blew this out of proportion was you not me FROM THE BEGINNING.
If you have problems with a very simple comment I made, then you will have huge problems with any protocol Stephen makes and no one here will want to make a comment, criticize, etc., if we have to go by what you think is not PC.
Anyway, I will refrain from posting to you from this point forward and I suggest you do the same. You are not the forum moderator. Nothing I said in the initial post was spiteful, racist, or hateful to merit the comments you made toward me. There are numerous others here who weren't offended by what I said and didn't make this an issue of racism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
This has been an interesting thread that I've finally caught up on. The last two days have produced some heated discussions, but I feel that the person(s) taking the heat for criticizing brief reviews are quite innocent of malice.
Personally, the absence of reviews for an album is sometimes frustrating when I want to know something about it before I make a purchase. On the other hand, sometimes a review that has a star-rating but text that contradicts it or doesn't support it, can be just as frustrating. Therefore, I can relate to the frustration, but I rarely say anything in reaction, and sometimes I am pleased to see when someone has the same frustration that I might have. Misery loves company!
I do think it's fair to have an expectation that you will gain knowledge from a review, professional or amateur (even if you don't agree with the review). Sticking to the review guidelines would ideally lead to some consistency, but there are probably many who haven't read the guidelines or don't follow them. I don't think it's fair to analyze the language or choice of adjectives that a reviewer uses to compose their reviews. "Content is King" and I think we're all looking for useful content when we read reviews. The occasional low-insight review doesn't impact this site too much because it is inconsistent with most of the site. I think it's fine and it's a fact of life for any forum, whether it's about music, movies, or videogames.
I don't like hearing suggestions of racism or sexism because it's not the point of this board. I, perhaps naively, don't think anyone is thinking of those issues when they write here. Of course, I think people tend to bring their own agendas into everything they read/interpret. Since I have dwelled in many a forum on the web and on the usenet in the last 20 years, I think it has taught me to be tolerant to people's views when I disgree with them, as long as they don't get personal with me or others. Conflict is good as long as they are resolved in ways that you can grow and learn from. Personal attacks, whether called for or not, ALWAYS detract from a community, and I hope this site will remain a site where people can calmly hear what's on the minds of other SACD Enthusiasts like me.
|
|
|
Post by LC November 1, 2004 (54 of 63)
|
|
people said:
...ad hominem...
Seen this come up a few times here with various spellings. There is indeed something wrong with an argumentum ad hominem ("argument to the man/person"), but I'm not sure people understand what it is. Arguing ad hominem is a kind of logical fallacy. The phrase is not a sophisticated way to say "calling people mean names." So you can't have an "ad hominem personal attack"; the personal attack is the ad hominem fallacy - if it the premise of an invalid argument, i.e. an argument in which the supplied premises do not guarantee the truth of the conclusion. For example, the statement "Billy is a dork" is not "ad hominem" unless there is an actual argument being made: "Billy is wrong about X because Billy is a dork," where X is something whose truth is unrelated to the personal characteristics (or circumstances) of Billy, even if the personal characteristics/circumstances in question make it reasonable to expect, in light of other facts about the world, that Billy will be wrong about X. The point is just that the one thing is logically unrelated to the other.
OK, that's all from the philosopher today...
|
|
|
Post by brenda November 2, 2004 (55 of 63)
|
|
LC said:
Seen this come up a few times here with various spellings. There is indeed something wrong with an argumentum ad hominem ("argument to the man/person"), but I'm not sure people understand what it is. Arguing ad hominem is a kind of logical fallacy. The phrase is not a sophisticated way to say "calling people mean names." So you can't have an "ad hominem personal attack"; the personal attack is the ad hominem fallacy - if it the premise of an invalid argument, i.e. an argument in which the supplied premises do not guarantee the truth of the conclusion. For example, the statement "Billy is a dork" is not "ad hominem" unless there is an actual argument being made: "Billy is wrong about X because Billy is a dork," where X is something whose truth is unrelated to the personal characteristics (or circumstances) of Billy, even if the personal characteristics/circumstances in question make it reasonable to expect, in light of other facts about the world, that Billy will be wrong about X. The point is just that the one thing is logically unrelated to the other.
OK, that's all from the philosopher today...
dear LC, thank you, i found that interesting. You learn something every day.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Popp November 2, 2004 (56 of 63)
|
|
My experience has taught me that the most important element in critical listening is the listener's familiarity with the audio system. It might be interesting to know what hardware a reviewer has, but I'm not sure it gives us any reliable information about him. He may have a Cheapo Deluxxe, but if he has carefully listened to many different recordings on his system (and I'm using the word "system" to include his particular listening room) over a number of years, he may be able to pick up nuances in the recording that others with much better hardware might miss.
As we all know, great equipment is no guarantee that the listener discerns or grasps what he's hearing from it.
I think it's much more helpful to observe how a particular reviewer's tastes track with yours. This principle applies to all kinds of reviews - from movie reviews to equipment evaluations. If Reviewer X calls something "obnoxious high-end trash" that sounds to you like pleasant "air," and if he finds some performance "invigorating" that you feel is just insanely too fast... you can learn much from that reviewer, even though he appears to live in a universe other than yours.
|
|
|
Post by Beagle March 24, 2005 (57 of 63)
|
|
I would also agree it is valuable, interesting & informative to get as wide a range of viewpoints as possible.
Poly et alia,
There is an INVERSE to the argument for "familiarity with the music": The Knowledgable Reviewer may be fixated on a memory from decades ago, a favourite LP heard back in one's younger years -- that mental artifact polished by repeated recollection (and perhaps coloured by a forgotten love affair). Knowledge has its own baggage; familiarity can breed contempt for the new and unjustified adoration of the old. Mea culpa, I am sure. There is SO MUCH subjectivity in this reviewing activity; One loves a recording today, and a year from now wonders why it was purchased at all. Still, the process is necessary, albeit with several grains of salt.
|
|
|
Post by flathead March 25, 2005 (58 of 63)
|
|
I do not agree with Polly's request at all. This is elitist malarkey. Most of the reviews that I cannot stand are from supposed experts that spend their time pontificating on twenty different, often unavailable, alternative performances. I find the best reviews to be from people such as myself who are just getting into classical and find the performance to be intellectually, and most importantly, emotionally involving. Does it move you or not? Is that a beautiful voice or what? Can you hear the nuances in those violins? Do you "feel" the meaning of the composer, do you come away saying, "man, this is good, this Beethoven really speaks to me." If so, give it a great review, tell it like it is, have another glass of wine, keep listening and write some more reviews. Life is good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
flathead said:
I do not agree with Polly's request at all. This is elitist malarkey. Most of the reviews that I cannot stand are from supposed experts that spend their time pontificating on twenty different, often unavailable, alternative performances. I find the best reviews to be from people such as myself who are just getting into classical and find the performance to be intellectually, and most importantly, emotionally involving. Does it move you or not? Is that a beautiful voice or what? Can you hear the nuances in those violins? Do you "feel" the meaning of the composer, do you come away saying, "man, this is good, this Beethoven really speaks to me." If so, give it a great review, tell it like it is, have another glass of wine, keep listening and write some more reviews. Life is good.
We need tolerance in both directions. Its the amalgam of reviews from a wide range of persectives that give the review systems its strength. I like to hear from people who simply enjoyed their listening experience as well as from those who have some background in that domain.
|
|
|
Post by raffells March 26, 2005 (60 of 63)
|
|
flathead said:
I do not agree with Polly's request at all. This is elitist malarkey. Most of the reviews that I cannot stand are from supposed experts that spend their time pontificating on twenty different, often unavailable, alternative performances. I find the best reviews to be from people such as myself who are just getting into classical and find the performance to be intellectually, and most importantly, emotionally involving. Does it move you or not? Is that a beautiful voice or what? Can you hear the nuances in those violins? Do you "feel" the meaning of the composer, do you come away saying, "man, this is good, this Beethoven really speaks to me." If so, give it a great review, tell it like it is, have another glass of wine, keep listening and write some more reviews. Life is good.
Hi flathead,, with the greatest respect, you state that you cannot stand experts reviews, then state "you find the Best reviews to be from people like yourself just getting into classical music".Then speak of interlectualy involving.....whilst these are interesting contradictions even if you yourself dont see it......Can I suggest that If you bought an sacd of a work that was new new to you that had just had high recommendations by other newbies to the arena and suddenly heard a version that is in every way superior and at less cost...would you still be happy ?....probably yes, if you want two versions of every piece?...I and a few others on this forum do have three or even four versions of many works and have heard many others versions...I dont profess to be elitist,.....Im from the wrong background....and I tend to revert back to my sense of humour when someone suggests as such(Ill eat most anything!) ..........
Whilst I may disagree with the odd review in this forum and I am always glad to see ANY review of ANY sacd It all adds the greater good and advancement for sacd and music.......I do hope for more information to be included in these reviews and I have been guilty myself of not putting enough into some of mine..and also losing some in posting.........Overall The subject of SACD has enough unwanted detracters without the need for insiders to squabble.....I may add that some things that Brenda stated in a currect topic of greater seriousness also that I dont agree with.....related to "opinions formed from our younger days"........I was tempted to respond with an interesting anectdote about the first time a girlfriend saw and heard the Firebird Live.....Especially when that first big drum went off..........more if you really want to know.....
I agree with response follow up that more tolerance is needed and possibly fewer responses that are emotive reactions.............Dave
|
|
